So Injured, So Old: 600lb DL Before I Die

Training Training Logs
201

[quote]baugust wrote:
And… to play devil’s advocate, isn’t the medical director technically correct, at least to a certain degree? He may be right that at your weight, regardless of what you can pull, it isn’t healthy, and therefore that makes you “at risk” and costs them more money.
[/quote]
This is very far from the reality of it though. You probably know this, I realize you said you were just playing devil’s advocate.

At his bodyfat% the risk factor associated with his weight are less than the vast majority of the general workforce he is being tested against. Your bodyweight can be a health issue even at very low bodyfat percentages as you probably know much better than I do, but this doesn’t happen for guys who are only like 210 (not saying that’s small!). Not to mention how he’s not sedentary (most people, even not fat ones are horribly inactive) and probably pays more attention to his diet than the average bloke.

On top of that, the amount of money that non-active people cost insurance is astronomical compared to people who lift; even if they don’t do much cardio. The general population is literally dangerously weak and immobile. They’re the ones who are going to have back problems from sitting at their desk and whose wrists and shoulder connective tissue and knees are going to snap like twigs if they ever have some kind of slip or accident. People who lift are much, much more durable and much, much cheaper in the long run.

202

[quote]csulli wrote:

[quote]baugust wrote:
And… to play devil’s advocate, isn’t the medical director technically correct, at least to a certain degree? He may be right that at your weight, regardless of what you can pull, it isn’t healthy, and therefore that makes you “at risk” and costs them more money.
[/quote]
This is very far from the reality of it though. You probably know this, I realize you said you were just playing devil’s advocate.

At his bodyfat% the risk factor associated with his weight are less than the vast majority of the general workforce he is being tested against. Your bodyweight can be a health issue even at very low bodyfat percentages as you probably know much better than I do, but this doesn’t happen for guys who are only like 210 (not saying that’s small!). Not to mention how he’s not sedentary (most people, even not fat ones are horribly inactive) and probably pays more attention to his diet than the average bloke.

On top of that, the amount of money that non-active people cost insurance is astronomical compared to people who lift; even if they don’t do much cardio. The general population is literally dangerously weak and immobile. They’re the ones who are going to have back problems from sitting at their desk and whose wrists and shoulder connective tissue and knees are going to snap like twigs if they ever have some kind of slip or accident. People who lift are much, much more durable and much, much cheaper in the long run.[/quote]

We are absolutely in agreement, csulli.

203

[quote]csulli wrote:

[quote]baugust wrote:
And… to play devil’s advocate, isn’t the medical director technically correct, at least to a certain degree? He may be right that at your weight, regardless of what you can pull, it isn’t healthy, and therefore that makes you “at risk” and costs them more money.
[/quote]
This is very far from the reality of it though. You probably know this, I realize you said you were just playing devil’s advocate.

At his bodyfat% the risk factor associated with his weight are less than the vast majority of the general workforce he is being tested against. Your bodyweight can be a health issue even at very low bodyfat percentages as you probably know much better than I do, but this doesn’t happen for guys who are only like 210 (not saying that’s small!). Not to mention how he’s not sedentary (most people, even not fat ones are horribly inactive) and probably pays more attention to his diet than the average bloke.

On top of that, the amount of money that non-active people cost insurance is astronomical compared to people who lift; even if they don’t do much cardio. The general population is literally dangerously weak and immobile. They’re the ones who are going to have back problems from sitting at their desk and whose wrists and shoulder connective tissue and knees are going to snap like twigs if they ever have some kind of slip or accident. People who lift are much, much more durable and much, much cheaper in the long run.[/quote]

csulli, I thank you.

Please see “Association between muscular strength and mortality in men: prospective cohort study”, British Medical Journal. Jul 12, 2008; 337(7661): 92â??95.

From the above: “Conclusion Muscular strength is inversely and independently associated with death from all causes and cancer in men, even after adjusting for cardiorespiratory fitness and other potential confounders.”

An isolated study to be sure, but since I am as prone to confirmation bias as the next guy, I’ll take it.

204

[quote]emskee wrote:
Please see “Association between muscular strength and mortality in men: prospective cohort study”, British Medical Journal. Jul 12, 2008; 337(7661): 92â??95.

From the above: “Conclusion Muscular strength is inversely and independently associated with death from all causes and cancer in men, even after adjusting for cardiorespiratory fitness and other potential confounders.”

An isolated study to be sure, but since I am as prone to confirmation bias as the next guy, I’ll take it.
[/quote]
Or in other words:

“Strong people are harder to kill than weak people and more useful in general.”

-Mark Rippetoe

205

[quote]emskee wrote:

[quote]baugust wrote:

[quote]emskee wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]csulli wrote:

[quote]emskee wrote:
Next Wednesday I get officially weighed in and calipered for percent body fat. This, along with height shall be sent to my “case worker” who will deem that I am still obese and need to weigh between 158 and 177 if I don’t want to pay a fat man penalty on my health insurance next year. They may let me pass if I am under 27% BF but they don’t have to since my BMI is like 32 (she tells me). I have a near elite deadlift. Maybe I am muscular?
[/quote]
Impossible. The weight of muscular humans is still an anomaly unknown to modern medicine. According to government science you’re just fat as hell I guess sorry.[/quote]

You gotta love BMI…[/quote]

One should imagine that medical personnel, making health decisions are capable of properly understanding statistics. I guess doctors and nurses are not required to pass advanced math or physics.

By the same reasoning, a male professor at an all girl’s school is a female because on the average (maximally likely), a person randomly selected from that school would be a female.

Carry on Marine.
[/quote]

Doctors and nurses aren’t required to pass advanced math or physics because those classes aren’t typically required or a part of their curriculum (at least at the graduate level). And I wouldn’t consider any undergraduate work in either field to be advanced, so any classes taken before medical or graduate school shouldn’t count. Regardless, at the graduate level (not medical school), we (at my institution) are required to take biostatistics (currently enrolled), and I think it’s extremely beneficial.

You also said, “I note that medicine, and other fields are unaware of how statistics work…” I’m not sure I agree! Is your case manager a Ph.D., or M.D.? Probably not. Even if she were, she doesn’t decide the rules, and she’s probably reading from a script anyway! (You may say that the medical director is a M.D., and I’m sure he is, but in this situation he is more of a “boss” involved in the business side than a practicing doctor). At the end of the day, it’s the people at the top that want $$$$ that decide the rules, regardless of how accurate they are (and typically they are not).

And… to play devil’s advocate, isn’t the medical director technically correct, at least to a certain degree? He may be right that at your weight, regardless of what you can pull, it isn’t healthy, and therefore that makes you “at risk” and costs them more money. I do not agree with the assessment based on BMI for athletes (they should use body composition and other health markers), but for the general population it typically does work (higher BMI associated, statistically, with diseases, mortality, etc.). You know what would be really ironic? If you send them that deadlift video and they say, “wow, that’s extremely dangerous, we’re going to double your premium!” :slight_smile:

ANYWAY, shouldn’t your deadlift goal be 650 or so? Given the ease of the 575 pull, I think you could already pull 600+.

Great log, my friend. Keep inspiring. [/quote]

Not dogging my case manager, she is an RN, but I am concerned when those who set the pace use macro statistics to model the sample.

To my point, I had a doctor, a premier neurologist, who said to me “you have all the symptoms of thoracic outlet syndrome, but it is very rare so I’m going to say that you don’t have it.” It is rare within the general population, not rare amongst those who have “all the symptoms.” Anyway, had further diagnostics and did indeed have an injury at the thoracic outlet.

I’m a researcher engineer and myself and others have similar stories from the MD world. Now Osteopaths, those people have a better oriented, more holistic view of the patient-ry. I will call out the MDs on this one.

And yes this is about money. Extra premiums are always appreciated.

OH MY GOD, that would actually make me laugh if I got pinged on heavy lifting as a life hazard. I’d deserve that one!

Maybe I should change the title to “Double Weight DL Before I Die”? [/quote]

I agree with you. Just wanted to offer the other side of things.

To your neurologist: perhaps he was just acting like a “good researcher” and assuming the null hypothesis was true? Doubtful, but again, trying to see the better, more intelligent side of people (especially those with advanced degrees). With that said, he obviously shouldn’t tell his patient that given the extreme similarity in symptoms that he clear cut does not have it, at least until further testing is done; and given the similarity, further tests should be done.

I think here one of the issues might be the use of internet research to self-diagnose (not saying that is what you did). Often times people will tell their doctor they have this and that because they have all of the associated symptoms. Problem is, so many of these symptoms overlap with countless other medical issues, and the internet is so full of crap (in addition to all of the amazing things) that it’s hard to discern what is medically relevant. I’m sure it’s hard for doctors nowadays, even though some of them are morons.

Sorry for the side tracking, hope you don’t mind! Also, you mentioned you were a “researcher engineer.” Is this in a specific field, or what does that mean exactly?

Oh, and don’t you mean triple body weight DL?

206

[quote]emskee wrote:
Okay, got measured this morning at the hospital…

5’ 8.5" tall

208.5 pounds body weight (my scale at home is obviously pessimistic, I weighed in at 211.8 at home)

13.39% body fat

27.91 pounds fat

180.59 pounds lean.

BMI 31.2, obese

I repeat, 13.39% body fat.

Obese.

[/quote]

Those are great results! I think you can definitely argue your way out of this one… <20% can easily be considered healthy. Just like the bodybuilder you mentioned. He’s an outlier, so they made an exception. You’re an outlier, so they can make an exception.

207

[quote]baugust wrote:

I agree with you. Just wanted to offer the other side of things.

To your neurologist: perhaps he was just acting like a “good researcher” and assuming the null hypothesis was true? Doubtful, but again, trying to see the better, more intelligent side of people (especially those with advanced degrees). With that said, he obviously shouldn’t tell his patient that given the extreme similarity in symptoms that he clear cut does not have it, at least until further testing is done; and given the similarity, further tests should be done.

I think here one of the issues might be the use of internet research to self-diagnose (not saying that is what you did). Often times people will tell their doctor they have this and that because they have all of the associated symptoms. Problem is, so many of these symptoms overlap with countless other medical issues, and the internet is so full of crap (in addition to all of the amazing things) that it’s hard to discern what is medically relevant. I’m sure it’s hard for doctors nowadays, even though some of them are morons.

Sorry for the side tracking, hope you don’t mind! Also, you mentioned you were a “researcher engineer.” Is this in a specific field, or what does that mean exactly?

Oh, and don’t you mean triple body weight DL?[/quote]

“To your neurologist: perhaps he was just acting like a “good researcher” and assuming the null hypothesis was true? Doubtful, but again, trying to see the better, more intelligent side of people (especially those with advanced degrees). With that said, he obviously shouldn’t tell his patient that given the extreme similarity in symptoms that he clear cut does not have it, at least until further testing is done; and given the similarity, further tests should be done.”

I believe, haven spoken with the gentleman, that he did not understand the concept of conditional probability. He did not request or even suggest further testing, he wrote me off as “well this is now a mystery.” I had never heard of “thoracic outlet syndrome” until the neurologist mentioned it and then immediately discarded the notion. So there was no self diagnosis on my end. Just pain and weakness and an EMG suggesting stricture at the thoracic outlet.

My orthopaedic surgeon said “that’s a load of crap” and wrote me a script for PT to treat an injury at the thoracic outlet. This treatment started clearing up the problem in short order (like days) after months (maybe 8 or 9?)of crazy pain and marked weakness. Perhaps coincidental? I judge that that is not the case, again conditional probability: the probability that it was not thoracic outlet syndrome given the probability that treatment for thoracic outlet syndrome relieved symptoms.

“Sorry for the side tracking, hope you don’t mind! Also, you mentioned you were a “researcher engineer.” Is this in a specific field, or what does that mean exactly?”

I work in a government lab and my title is Senior Research Engineer. (oooooooooh) I function as Principle Investigator, Co-Investigator or Collaborator on science missions usually in/for space or on proposals in response to science calls for orbital or planetary instrument development. I have a Master of Science in electrical engineering.

In spite of my position and title, I cannot multiply thus the gaff. I did in fact mean “triple body weight DL.” (…sigh…)

208

[quote]csulli wrote:

[quote]emskee wrote:
Please see “Association between muscular strength and mortality in men: prospective cohort study”, British Medical Journal. Jul 12, 2008; 337(7661): 92Ã??Ã?¢??95.

From the above: “Conclusion Muscular strength is inversely and independently associated with death from all causes and cancer in men, even after adjusting for cardiorespiratory fitness and other potential confounders.”

An isolated study to be sure, but since I am as prone to confirmation bias as the next guy, I’ll take it.
[/quote]
Or in other words:

“Strong people are harder to kill than weak people and more useful in general.”

-Mark Rippetoe[/quote]

Yup, there it is folks!

Here’s to us, the almost immortal!

209

[quote]baugust wrote:

[quote]emskee wrote:
Okay, got measured this morning at the hospital…

5’ 8.5" tall

208.5 pounds body weight (my scale at home is obviously pessimistic, I weighed in at 211.8 at home)

13.39% body fat

27.91 pounds fat

180.59 pounds lean.

BMI 31.2, obese

I repeat, 13.39% body fat.

Obese.

[/quote]

Those are great results! I think you can definitely argue your way out of this one… <20% can easily be considered healthy. Just like the bodybuilder you mentioned. He’s an outlier, so they made an exception. You’re an outlier, so they can make an exception. [/quote]

I shall certainly try. My case worked emailed me a bit ago to tell me that my results have been submitted and I should expect a decision in 6 or so weeks.

(6?)

210

You are closer than you think. Keep at it!

211

[quote]Monopoly19 wrote:
You are closer than you think. Keep at it![/quote]

I’m going again on April 8. Thanks!

212

I hope to be obese before I die.

213

[quote]LoRez wrote:
I hope to be obese before I die.[/quote]

It’s EASY! All I had to do was lift 50 zillion tons of weight for gabillions of hours and watch what I ate.

Give it a try!!!

214

[quote]LoRez wrote:
I hope to be obese before I die.[/quote]
I was so excited when my BMI called me overweight. Can’t wait for obese lol.

215

“Obese” - the new swole.

216

[quote]Ass Banana wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:
I hope to be obese before I die.[/quote]
I was so excited when my BMI called me overweight. Can’t wait for obese lol.[/quote]

I thought I was the only one with this mindset… I’m glad I’m not.

217

[quote]emskee wrote:

[quote]baugust wrote:

[quote]emskee wrote:
Okay, got measured this morning at the hospital…

5’ 8.5" tall

208.5 pounds body weight (my scale at home is obviously pessimistic, I weighed in at 211.8 at home)

13.39% body fat

27.91 pounds fat

180.59 pounds lean.

BMI 31.2, obese

I repeat, 13.39% body fat.

Obese.

[/quote]

Those are great results! I think you can definitely argue your way out of this one… <20% can easily be considered healthy. Just like the bodybuilder you mentioned. He’s an outlier, so they made an exception. You’re an outlier, so they can make an exception. [/quote]

I shall certainly try. My case worked emailed me a bit ago to tell me that my results have been submitted and I should expect a decision in 6 or so weeks.

(6?)
[/quote]

That seems like a ridiculously large amount of time for someone to look at a piece of paper that essentially says, “he’s old (sorry), lifting nearly triple bodyweight weights off the floor, and has 13% body fat… we found superman, free insurance.” :wink:

Either way, keep us updated!

218

Wow man, 13.4% BF at your age and strength level is awesome. The insurance people had better give you your 'spect and take you down a price class or two!

219

That’s all pretty funny…

No sweat, I am “old”.

I think my case worker must be tired of me. You think I whined here…

“Obese and BEYOND!”

220

THAT’S IT!!!

I need to restart this log as titled “To obesity and beyond!”

Okay, that was a useless post.